Many observers are saying that it would be no great surprise if Dolan were to end up one day in New York, where Cardinal Edward Egan will be 74 on April 2, and hence within a year of retirement age. Dolan has the sort of big, exuberant personality it takes to play on the world's largest media stage; some believe he could be another Cardinal John O'Connor in terms of both profile and impact.

Time, as always, will tell.

On the one hand, things have been so obvious, I cannot even concede to myself an "I told you so." On the other hand, Allen happenstantially hit upon a great test of His Excellecy's leadership skills: St. Francis Seminary. On this subject, Allen wrote:

"There's also a political dimension to the situation, since under Weakland St. Francis mixed seminarians, candidates for the diaconate, and aspiring lay ministers in the same academic program. (The seminary is actually called a "center for ministerial formation"). It's an approach that has never gone down well with some Catholics worried about fuzziness on priestly identity. If a restructuring plan separates the seminarians from lay students, some will therefore see it as part of a "restorationist" agenda."

With three acedemic years already under his leadership, and another year of admissions, course planning, sensitivity-training, etc., already in the offing...What exactly has His Excellency accomplished? Simple, unnuanced answer: Nothing!

Rhetorically I have to ask: If about two dozen students, six or so entrenched, not-so-post-hippie faculty, and the mere aura of a controversy, have kept the Archbishop from do anything for three years in what John Allen calls "what amounts to a mid-sized ecclesiastical market" then how in the world could he really accomplish anything in the behemoth that is the Archdiocese of New York?

Yes, Dolan is gregarious. He is a great back-slapper. But what has that really amounted to? Are even the supposedly orthodox in the Church slipping into a style over substance mode?